What is really the difference between TMA and MMA? False Dichotomy...

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think we are talking of different things. Here we are talking of a full Nelson.

If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should

- apply leverage,
- move back,
- use your knee to crash his structure, and
- force him to sit on the ground.

This way, your opponent won't be able to apply any counters on you.

[video=youtube_share;KOb5_WHu3K4]http://youtu.be/KOb5_WHu3K4[/video]

I'm talking about the "head lock" at 2.17.

[video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]

In the following clip, since your left hand did not control your opponent's right arm, it gives your opponent all the freedom to apply his counters to against you.

[video=youtube_share;6U1znsPw0vI]http://youtu.be/6U1znsPw0vI[/video]

In the following picture, you use your right hand to control your opponent's left arm. Your opponent will only have one arm left (his right arm) to counter you. that leading arm control is very important when you apply "head lock". Also your opponent's structure has been crashed. His spine is bending forward and side way to his right.

If you

- use your left leg to block his left leg,
- make your left elbow to point straight down to the ground,
- you can take your opponent down.

IMO, the reason that you apply "full Nelson" or "head lock" is to take your opponent down and not just stand there.

 

[mook jong man]

The full nelson escape is pretty fundamental. Bring your elbows down. I don't see anything mystical about it, but neither do I see anything uniquely WC. What makes this "escape" unrealistic is the reaction of the partner after having his grip broken.

You can see how similar this demonstration is to what is taught in BJJ/GJJ:

[video=youtube_share;-f8_lvLCWjo]http://youtu.be/-f8_lvLCWjo[/video]

Also for comparison are the four typical head lock defenses in BJJ/GJJ:

[video=youtube_share;6U1znsPw0vI]http://youtu.be/6U1znsPw0vI[/video]

No the BJJ defence is totally different , he is creating a frame by holding his hands up to his forehead to take the pressure off his neck.

In the Wing Chun defence the frame is not needed , structural integrity is maintained by visualising a straight line from the coccyx to the top of the head , then the arms are just relaxed and lowered.

The reaction of the partner having his grip broken is because he has just the felt a very large percentage of the demonstrators body mass fall straight onto his arms , remember what he says on the video about transferring body mass to the contact points.

Again , there is no demonstrating this on video you have to feel it for yourself.

 

[mook jong man]

Mostly because the only people who can do it are chunners on chunners. for some reason it never relates to competition. And as a fundamental process it should.

So there is something there that is getting stopped when it is actively resisted.

This might come as a bit of a revelation to you , but not everybody gives a rats **** about competition.

 

[K-man]

The full nelson escape is pretty fundamental. Bring your elbows down. I don't see anything mystical about it, but neither do I see anything uniquely WC. What makes this "escape" unrealistic is the reaction of the partner after having his grip broken.

Just one is using strength and one isn't.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Lol. You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths. On the one hand, we can't draw any conclusions from the wc demo because we just don't know. But on the other, you can tell from the video that the Bjj demo is all strength. Such arrogant bs.

 

[K-man]

If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should

- apply leverage,
- move back,
- use your knee to crash his structure, and
- force him to sit on the ground.

This way, your opponent won't be able to apply any counters on you.

I'm talking about the "head lock" at 2.17.


In the following clip, since your left hand did not control your opponent's right arm, it gives your opponent all the freedom to apply his counters to against you.

In the following picture, you use your right hand to control your opponent's left arm. Your opponent will only have one arm left (his right arm) to counter you. that leading arm control is very important when you apply "head lock". Also your opponent's structure has been crashed. His spine is bending forward and side way to his right.

If you

- use your left leg to block his left leg,
- make your left elbow to point straight down to the ground,
- you can take your opponent down.

IMO, the reason that you apply "full Nelson" or "head lock" is to take your opponent down and not just stand there.

Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as Mook has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. There is a level after technique.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Yeah. Okay.

 

[drop bear]

This might come as a bit of a revelation to you , but not everybody gives a rats **** about competition.

And we are back to the OP and a fundamental difference.

MMA is structured on function. The fundamentals have to work fully resisted. And competition is the testing ground. And in that testing ground we do not find hundred year old grand masters throwing people around like rag dolls.

Form follows function or whatever that SIG says.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tvCFrf9kJwI

 

[drewtoby]

Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as Mook has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. There is a level after technique.
:asian:

Another key difference or similarity in the TMA vs. MMA dichotomy. Perhaps the "level after technique" is different in TMA and MMA. I think it is not.

I have to agree with Steve saying

"It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other... Vanity, my friends, and insecurity. That's my take, at least."

even if I am trying to break down the barriers, so to speak, and see how each "style" leans to certain training methods, viewpoints, and goals yet each produce artists capable of defending themselves. It is amazing to see just how many differences can be observed in the martial arts, yet despite the differences the common goal is met, sometimes sooner, and sometimes later. However, what I find to be true is a lot of overlap.

I have to admit that this thread has carried on longer than I would have liked, and has turned to comparing the differences. That was not my intention. I want to find the similarities with out looking down on the others, as is starting to happen.

 

[drop bear]

If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should

- apply leverage,
- move back,
- use your knee to crash his structure, and
- force him to sit on the ground.

This way, your opponent won't be able to apply any counters on you.

[video=youtube_share;KOb5_WHu3K4]http://youtu.be/KOb5_WHu3K4[/video]

I'm talking about the "head lock" at 2.17.

[video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]

In the following clip, since your left hand did not control your opponent's right arm, it gives your opponent all the freedom to apply his counters to against you.

[video=youtube_share;6U1znsPw0vI]http://youtu.be/6U1znsPw0vI[/video]

In the following picture, you use your right hand to control your opponent's left arm. Your opponent will only have one arm left (his right arm) to counter you. that leading arm control is very important when you apply "head lock". Also your opponent's structure has been crashed. His spine is bending forward and side way to his right.

If you

- use your left leg to block his left leg,
- make your left elbow to point straight down to the ground,
- you can take your opponent down.

IMO, the reason that you apply "full Nelson" or "head lock" is to take your opponent down and not just stand there.

For the full nelson you can also gable grip and then neck crank them. Making is a pig of a thing if you are silly enough to get caught.

 

[Steve]

Another key difference or similarity in the TMA vs. MMA dichotomy. Perhaps the "level after technique" is different in TMA and MMA. I think it is not.

I have to agree with Steve saying

"It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other... Vanity, my friends, and insecurity. That's my take, at least."

even if I am trying to break down the barriers, so to speak, and see how each "style" leans to certain training methods, viewpoints, and goals yet each produce artists capable of defending themselves. It is amazing to see just how many differences can be observed in the martial arts, yet despite the differences the common goal is met, sometimes sooner, and sometimes later. However, what I find to be true is a lot of overlap.

I have to admit that this thread has carried on longer than I would have liked, and has turned to comparing the differences. That was not my intention. I want to find the similarities with out looking down on the others, as is starting to happen.

I think that this isn't even about TMA vs MMA, but has become an insecure Wing Chun guy making it a WC vs MMA thread. Frankly, I think that it could just as easily be WC vs Judo or WC vs Karate or WC vs Aikido... WC vs anything NOT WC based upon the nature of the comments being made.

 

[drop bear]

Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as Mook has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. There is a level after technique.
:asian:

Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.

Ben askren is kind of the guy for that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QZAtfHDanMs

 

[Steve]

Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.

Lol. It can't be! That's heresy, buddy.

 

[drewtoby]

Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.

True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?

 

[drop bear]

True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?

In a competition sense yes.

 

[drop bear]

Lol. It can't be! That's heresy, buddy.

Yeah apparently. But then competition obviously blocks chi. Because nobody can use it effectively.

 

[mook jong man]

Yeah apparently. But then competition obviously blocks chi. Because nobody can use it effectively.

And apparently competition also blocks intelligent thought and the ability to assimilate new concepts.

 

[drop bear]

And apparently competition also blocks intelligent thought and the ability to assimilate new concepts.

Well that is the other theory.

That even though this fundamental training advantage exists and is freely available. Nobody has decided to use it. There has not been a single chunner punch a guy across the room and have this method become integrated into pretty much all sports that could take advantage of it.

And especially martial arts like MMA because that is pretty much all they do.

 

[Jaeimseu]

Well that is the other theory.

That even though this fundamental training advantage exists and is freely available. Nobody has decided to use it. There has not been a single chunner punch a guy across the room and have this method become integrated into pretty much all sports that could take advantage of it.

And especially martial arts like MMA because that is pretty much all they do.

Maybe Randy Coutoure(spelling) will make a comeback in about 50 years and retake the title^^.

 

[K-man]

True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?

Partly, but not new techniques as such. If you read up on Shuhari, I am talking of the 'ri' application.
:asian: